AccScience Publishing / JSE / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/JSE025010141
ARTICLE

Automatic velocity analysis method based on a joint model

Sixin Zhu1* Yijie Hu1 Xu Zhao1 Shuo Cai1
Show Less
1 College of Geosciences and Engineering, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou, Henan, China
Received: 30 December 2025 | Revised: 28 April 2026 | Accepted: 29 May 2026 | Published online: 18 June 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Accurate seismic velocity analysis is essential for normal moveout correction, stacking, migration imaging, and subsequent seismic interpretation. However, manual velocity picking is time-consuming and depends strongly on interpreter experience, while existing automatic methods may miss weak and divergent energy clusters in deep velocity spectra with low signal-to-noise ratios. To address these limitations, this study proposes a joint detection and prediction framework for automatic velocity spectrum picking. In the detection stage, the You Only Look Once detector is improved by incorporating a Squeeze-and-Excitation attention mechanism and an EfficientNetV2 backbone, which enhances the recognition of weak and multi-scale energy clusters. In the prediction stage, a Grey-Wolf-Optimization-enhanced bidirectional long short-term memory network is used to learn the ordered evolution of energy-cluster coordinates along the time axis and to suppress anomalous picks. The proposed method was evaluated using field seismic velocity spectra from an oilfield in eastern China. To reduce the risk of spatial information leakage, the training, validation, and test data were selected from spatially separated areas under similar acquisition conditions. The method was compared with a traditional similarity-weighted calculation method and a convolutional-neural-network-based velocity-picking baseline. In addition to common detection indicators, shallow and deep root-mean-square velocity errors were used to assess the geophysical relevance of the picked velocity trends. The results show that the proposed framework improves weak-energy recognition, reduces missed and false picks, and generates velocity-picking curves that are more consistent with expert manual interpretation. Ablation experiments further demonstrate that the attention mechanism, feature extraction backbone, bidirectional sequence prediction model, and parameter optimization strategy each contribute to the overall performance. These findings suggest that the proposed framework provides a practical and robust approach for automatic seismic velocity analysis.

Keywords
Velocity spectrum
Automatic picking
Deep learning
Joint model
YOLOv5
BiLSTM
Funding
This research was financially supported by the Henan Provincial Science and Technology Research Project (Grant No. 252102210222 and Grant No. 262102321110).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Cooke D, Bona A, Hansen B. Simultaneous time imaging, velocity estimation, and multiple suppression using local event slopes. Geophysics. 2009;74(6):WCA65-WCA73. doi: 10.1190/1.3242751

 

  1. Verschuur DJ, Berkhout AJ, Wapenaar CPA. Adaptive surface-related multiple elimination. Geophysics. 1992;57(9):1166- 1177. doi: 10.1190/1.1443330

 

  1. Cameron MK, Fomel SB, Sethian JA. Time-to-depth conversion and seismic velocity estimation using time-migration velocity. Geophysics. 2008;73(5):VE205-VE210. doi: 10.1190/1.2967501

 

  1. Jones IF. Tutorial: migration imaging conditions. First Break. 2014;32(12):45-55. doi: 10.3997/1365-2397.2014017

 

  1. Fei W, McMechan GA. 3D common-reflection-point-based seismic migration velocity analysis. Geophysics. 2006;71(5):S161-S167. doi: 10.1190/1.2227523

 

  1. Virieux J, Operto S. An overview of full-waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics. 2009;74(6):WCC1- WCC26. doi: 10.1190/1.3238367

 

  1. Chauris H, Cocher E. From migration to inversion velocity analysis. Geophysics. 2017;82(3):S207-S223. doi: 10.1190/geo2016-0359.1

 

  1. Park MJ, Sacchi MD. Automatic velocity analysis using convolutional neural network and transfer learning. Geophysics. 2020;85(1):V33-V43. doi: 10.1190/geo2018-0870.1

 

  1. Huang KY, Yang JR. Seismic velocity picking using Hopfield neural network. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2015. Society of Exploration Geophysicists; 2015:5317-5321. doi: 10.1190/segam2015-5815718.1

 

  1. Wei S, Yonglin O, Qingcai Z, et al. Unsupervised machine learning: K-means clustering velocity semblance auto-picking. In: 80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2018. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers; 2018:1- 5. doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.201800919

 

  1. Liu G, Li C, Liu X, et al. Automatic stacking-velocity estimation using similarity-weighted clustering. Geophys Prospect. 2018;66(4):649-663. doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12602

 

  1. Chen Y. Automatic semblance picking by a bottom-up clustering method. In: SEG 2018 Workshop: Maximizing Asset Value Through Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Society of Exploration Geophysicists and the Chinese Geophysical Society; 2018:44-48. doi: 10.1190/AIML2018-12.1

 

  1. McCormack MD, Zaucha DE, Dushek DW. First-break refraction event picking and seismic data conditioning using neural networks. Geophysics. 1993;58(1):67-78. doi: 10.1190/1.1443352

 

  1. Fabien-Ouellet G, Sarkar R. Seismic velocity estimation: A deep recurrent neural-network approach. Geophysics. 2020;85(1):U21-U29. doi: 10.1190/geo2018-0786.1

 

  1. Araya-Polo M, Jennings J, Adler A, Dahlke T. Deep-learning tomography. Leading Edge. 2018;37(1):58-66. doi: 10.1190/tle37010058.1

 

  1. Wu X, Liang L, Shi Y, Fomel S. FaultSeg3D: Using synthetic data sets to train an end-to-end convolutional neural network for 3D seismic fault segmentation. Geophysics. 2019;84(3):IM35-IM45. doi: 10.1190/geo2018-0646.1

 

  1. Yang F, Ma J. Deep-learning inversion: A next-generation seismic velocity model building method. Geophysics. 2019;84(4):R583-R599. doi: 10.1190/geo2018-0249.1

 

  1. Mulder WA, ten Kroode APE. Automatic velocity analysis by differential semblance optimization. Geophysics. 2002;67(4):1184-1191. doi: 10.1190/1.1500380

 

  1. Sava P, Biondi B. Wave-equation migration velocity analysis. I. Theory. Geophys Prospect. 2004;52(6):593-606. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00447.x

 

  1. Velis DR. Simulated annealing velocity analysis: Automating the picking process. Geophysics. 2021;86(2):V119-V130. doi: 10.1190/geo2020-0323.1

 

  1. Peters B, Granek J, Haber E. Neural networks for geophysicists and their application to seismic data interpretation. Leading Edge. 2019;38(7):534-540. doi: 10.1190/tle38070534.1

 

  1. Hu J, Shen L, Albanie S, Sun G, Wu E. Squeeze-and-excitation networks. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2020;42(8):2011-2023. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2913372

 

  1. Niu Z, Zhong G, Yu H. A review on the attention mechanism of deep learning. Neurocomputing. 2021;452:48-62. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.03.091

 

  1. Tan H, Xiao H, Lai S, Liu Y, Zhang M. Denoising real bursts with squeeze-and-excitation residual network. IET Image Process. 2020;14(14):3437-3445. doi: 10.1049/iet-ipr.2020.0041

 

  1. Tan M, Le QV. EfficientNetV2: Smaller models and faster training. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2021). Vol 139. PMLR; 2021:10096-10106.

 

  1. Hochreiter S, Schmidhuber J. Long short-term memory. Neural Comput. 1997;9(8):1735-1780. doi: 10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735

 

  1. Alghassi A, Perinpanayagam S, Samie M, Sreenuch T. Computationally efficient, real-time, and embeddable prognostic techniques for power electronics. IEEE Trans Power Electron. 2015;30(5):2623-2634. doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2014.2360662

 

  1. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature. 2015;521(7553):436-444. doi: 10.1038/nature14539

 

  1. Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A. Grey wolf optimizer. Adv Eng Softw. 2014;69:46-61. doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007

 

  1. Faris H, Aljarah I, Al-Betar MA, Mirjalili S. Grey wolf optimizer: a review of recent variants and applications. Neural Comput Appl. 2018;30(2):413-435. doi: 10.1007/s00521-017-3272-5
Share
Back to top
Journal of Seismic Exploration, Electronic ISSN: 0963-0651 Print ISSN: 0963-0651, Published by AccScience Publishing